According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[HoreTore]

In heaven or hell?

This is one of the main reason why I'll never be a christian was a Hindu. He did not follow christ, and as such shouldn't be in heaven right? Only through me and all that... If he isn't in heaven, then he must be in Hell, or I guess somewhere less pleasing than heaven for those who do not believe in hell. Can't claim the ignorance and limbo thing on him either, as he certainly knew about christianity and jesus, but decided not to convert.

But what god would punish Gandhi? Seriously? The man who organized a succesful independence movement not through war, but through total nonviolence, and also inspired a bunch of other nonviolence movements all over the world. To punish such a man would be rather.... evil, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if he isn't punished in any way, if he got into heaven ass a Hindu, then what's the point of accepting christ then? I could just go about being a good boy, and no harm will come to me in the afterlife...

Is there a christian here who can address this for me?

[Fragony]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In heaven or hell?

Well, as I'm not God, I don't have an answer. However, as you asked so nicely I'll try to ellucidate some of the issues.

This is one of the main reason why I'll never be a christian was a Hindu. He did not follow christ, and as such shouldn't be in heaven right? Only through me and all that... If he isn't in heaven, then he must be in Hell, or I guess somewhere less pleasing than heaven for those who do not believe in hell. Can't claim the ignorance and limbo thing on him either, as he certainly knew about christianity and jesus, but decided not to convert.

Ok, well this is a fair gripe, but you need to take a nuanced view about this. Why didn't he follow Christ? Pride? Racism? Cultural prejudice? These are all attributes attached to Ghandi at one time or another, racism against non-Hindu's and Blacks in particular is the most infamous, I believe.

To simply assume that Ghandi should get into heaven is therefore unjustified, whatever he may have done he was also deeply flawed as an individual.

On the other hand, rejection of Christ assumes not only exposure, but also effective preaching. If Ghandi was not actually exposed to both then he might be judged as not having actually "rejected" Christ. In which case, he would be judged as a Christian would, I believe, this means his penitence and his wish to know God would be the deciding factors.

But what god would punish Gandhi? Seriously? The man who organized a succesful independence movement not through war, but through total nonviolence, and also inspired a bunch of other nonviolence movements all over the world. To punish such a man would be rather.... evil, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if he isn't punished in any way, if he got into heaven ass a Hindu, then what's the point of accepting christ then? I could just go about being a good boy, and no harm will come to me in the afterlife...

Is there a christian here who can address this for me?

Was Ghandi really a good boy, though? Don't forget that his legacy was also riots and continuing hostility between India and Pakistan, two unequittable and deeply corrupt democracies. India has been run for decades by a political dynasty founded on his lineage.

Also, who is to say that Ghandi was right to push for independence at that time? Canada and Australia indicate that London was willing to grant home-rule when it considered the Dominion/Possession to be capable of supporting it.

Finally, it's worth remembering that had Ghandi converted he would have suffered far worse at the hands of his own people because of their religion than he actually did at the hands of the British.

[Beskar]

Depends on your theory of heaven and hell.

I believe in the catholic faith, all those who reject god but live good lives go to limbo, which is a peaceful, but sad place. Some other christians believe that all good people go to Heaven while others have non-Christians go straight to hell.

Some others believe that different gods have different kingdom's, so the Christians believe they go to yahweh's Kingdom, while Vikings believe they go to Valhalla, and those blue Aliens from Avatar believe they join the ecosystem.

My own personal opinion is that any real example of heaven or immortality is in the minds of the people of the world. In this way, people like Churchill (not the nodding dog) is alive in the minds of the people who remember him and his duties during WW2, unfortunately, this says to same about a couple of other figures during that period too. Death itself is more returning back to the earth, in a less pleasant way, if you get buried, you become plant food, in the ecosystem we call life.

[The Wizard]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.

Also, am I the only one who finds this view of PVC's absolutely sickeningly arrogant, that Gandhi was in the wrong not to accept the Christian dogma? What gives Christians the monopoly on being morally right? Absolutely nothing.

P.S. The Nehru-Gandhi family is called that way for a reason... it isn't related to Mohandas Gandhi. Its progenitor was Jawaharlal Nehru, another Congress figure and first PM of India. The Gandhi comes from another Gujarati, Feroze Gandhi, who was not related to Mohandas.

[HoreTore]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.

Indeed. His philosophy was strict non-violence. That Martin Luther King followed his example is perhaps the best reason why the civil rights struggle in the 60's was relatively bloodless. India is a big country with a billion people; of course he can't stop all of them from hating each other. Why was he right in pushing for independence? Because that's what the indian people wanted, and as such its a democratic obligation... The point, however, is not whether or not to do it, but the way in which it was done, ie. the non-violence.

Gandhi ranks among the finest examples the human race has ever produced. To punish him in any way is just wrong. If he isn't punished then there isn't really any point for me to follow jesus either....

[Centurion1]

Martin Luther King followed his example is perhaps the best reason why the civil rights struggle in the 60's was relatively bloodless.

Martin Luther King was not a saint either.


As to Gandhi's right to heaven I believe that God takes into account culture and other religion but judges you as more a whole individual not on a single thing. Basically (this is my life now) if you were applying to university he would look at your grades but also your extracurricular and sports. So personally following God by the christian faith is just one of many paths to reaching him. He believes that all paths are paths to Him as he is simply different manifestations of Himself. Sorta stolen from the Hindu's belief but I am not arguing.

As to PVC's right to think Christianity is superior........ well if you personally follow something of course you think you follow the right path and you have a superior religion. Do you have a religion Wizard. Because if you do you probably think deep down you are right and they are obviously wrong. Even if you do not and are an atheist as i know you are Horetore you probably think you know better than us poor saps who actually believe in a God. Better to be safe than sorry though, eh.

The part about different paths was told to me directly by my Catholic priest, the biggest Christian sect so I would say what he think is relatively accurate as to beliefs of the church.

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering

PVC while the racism comment may be a tad overdone considering most peoples feelings at the time I understand what yo are saying, nobody is a real saint in everyone's eyes, even actual christian saints.

[The Wizard]

I am an agnost, so no, I do not have a religion.

[Beskar]

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering

No, it is a different concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory


Limbo is a place between Heaven and Hell, for the good non-believers. Purgatory is a temporary punishment for believers who weren't all that good.

Edit: Also, there are all sorts of theories and theotorical thoughts which are different to this as well.

[Centurion1]

Do you understand what i am saying though. People have a natural tendency to think their beliefs are right and others are wrong. To attempt to do anything else is impossibel because no matter how hard you try to equalize religion you are going to think your particular dogma is the RIGHT ONE.

[Centurion1]

No, it is a different concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory


Limbo is a place between Heaven and Hell, for the good non-believers. Purgatory is a temporary punishment for believers who weren't all that good.

Huh makes sense.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not understand the charge against Christians of them being arrogant.

First of all, it is no more arrogant of PVC to say that he believes Christianity to be the only true path, than it is for someone else to say that many paths lead to God. The fact that the latter belief system is more inclusive says nothing of personal traits such as arrogance on the part of those who follow it.

Secondly, Christians do not believe themselves to be superior to anyone else on account of their faith. A born again Christian will believe that without redemption in Christ's blood they are quite simply the scum of the earth. Christianity teaches that if you break one of the commandments, then you have broken all of them, since sin is just an expression of your true nature... a Christian will believe they are no better than a theif, an adulturer, a murderer etc. So how someone can be called arrogant for believing this is beyond me.

[Husar]

Why was he right in pushing for independence? Because that's what the indian people wanted, and as such its a democratic obligation...

You're assuming that god would always agree with public opinion and support democracy in general, maybe the catholic church bows to the will of the people over the years but that is not how the bible describes god. What the indian people wanted might have just been plain wrong in god's eyes.

[HoreTore]

As to Gandhi's right to heaven I believe that God takes into account culture and other religion but judges you as more a whole individual not on a single thing. Basically (this is my life now) if you were applying to university he would look at your grades but also your extracurricular and sports. So personally following God by the christian faith is just one of many paths to reaching him. He believes that all paths are paths to Him as he is simply different manifestations of Himself. Sorta stolen from the Hindu's belief but I am not arguing.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

So.... Jesus was lying?

You're assuming that god would always agree with public opinion and support democracy in general, maybe the catholic church bows to the will of the people over the years but that is not how the bible describes god. What the indian people wanted might have just been plain wrong in god's eyes.

So.... God hates freedom?

[The Wizard]

I do not understand the charge against Christians of them being arrogant.

First of all, it is no more arrogant of PVC to say that he believes Christianity to be the only true path, than it is for someone else to say that many paths lead to God. The fact that the latter belief system is more inclusive says nothing of personal traits such as arrogance on the part of those who follow it.

Secondly, Christians do not believe themselves to be superior to anyone else on account of their faith. A born again Christian will believe that without redemption in Christ's blood they are quite simply the scum of the earth. Christianity teaches that if you break one of the commandments, then you have broken all of them, since sin is just an expression of your true nature... a Christian will believe they are no better than a theif, an adulturer, a murderer etc. So how someone can be called arrogant for believing this is beyond me.

It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer? And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right? I smell something, smells like logical fallacy...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you understand what i am saying though. People have a natural tendency to think their beliefs are right and others are wrong. To attempt to do anything else is impossibel because no matter how hard you try to equalize religion you are going to think your particular dogma is the RIGHT ONE.

Quite, in fact holding a belief you don't see as superior to others in hypocritical.

As far as the Racism issue, my point was that Ghandi took actions that benefitted his own people, and there is evidence he looked down on at least one other "race."

Also, for the record, prejudice does not become acceptable in a particular context.

[HoreTore]

Quite, in fact holding a belief you don't see as superior to others in hypocritical.

As far as the Racism issue, my point was that Ghandi took actions that benefitted his own people, and there is evidence he looked down on at least one other "race."

Also, for the record, prejudice does not become acceptable in a particular context.

So....

You're basically saying that almost every single British monarch, the founding fathers, heck, almost every single person on earth up until modern times were bastards...?

No, I'll stand by my claim that Gandhi was among the best humanity has ever produced.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer?

Why would it be? To be arrogant suggest viewing others as inferior to yourself... how is a Christian doing this if they believe they are just as sinful as any other person.

At a personal level, Christianity must surely be one of the least arrogant belief systems of all. It teaches that all people are born in the same state of sin, and that any good qualities are a gift of God and ought to be attributed only to him. Contrast this with the other belief systems out there, that often make people righteous of their own accord simply because they act more 'morally' than others. This reminds me of all those people who claim to be 'moral atheists'. Personally, I could not stomach the thought of claiming to be a good or moral person.

In fact, this idea is quite relevent to this thread. HoreTore and others clearly believe Ghandi was a great and moral individual, no doubt a better person than many others. And yet, if you look at Ghandi himself, one of the aspects of his personality was just how humble he was.

And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right?

Of course it isn't, that's what everyone does. In claiming many paths lead to God, you have already rejected outright the Christian worldview and assumed that your own belief system is correct. You then go on to make personal judgments on those who do not share your more broad outlook on morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So.... Jesus was lying?



So.... God hates freedom?

If Jesus actually said that, it's a matter of context and interpretation because what he said was that all those who turn towards God will be saved; and that message came only from him.

as to whether God hates Freedom; that's a matter of denomination.

So....

You're basically saying that almost every single British monarch, the founding fathers, heck, almost every single person on earth up until modern times were bastards...?

No, I'll stand by my claim that Gandhi was among the best humanity has ever produced.

No, I'm saying they're not perfect; and niether was Ghandi.

It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer? And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right? I smell something, smells like logical fallacy...

You're missing the point. Christianity is not about "perfecting" the individual, but about repairing the individual's relationship with God. I would not phrase it in the same way Rhy does, because it produces this sort of reaction. However, I do agree with him in that the apparently guiltless man keeps dark secrets in his heart and the serial killer is capable of contrition and thence redemption.

[HoreTore]

No, I'm saying they're not perfect; and niether was Ghandi.

....Which isn't really relevant to the question of where he is now.

If he's in hell, then the christian god is evil in my opinion. If he's in heaven, there's no point in being a christian. If there's a third alternative, please explain...

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's not my intent to troll nice people who are religious, because it may offend them and that's not my intent. But I still feel like I can share my opinion, can I not? Spoiler'ed anyway to protect people's feelings.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For me it is a moot point, because I cannot bring myself to think that a kind and loving creator being would burn me forever simply because I didn't blindly accept one man's opinion that he was God.

It's sort of a contradiction in terms. The benevolent, merciful torturer of his own children. There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value. Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad. Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart. If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey. That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell. Oh, but we can make exceptions, yes? Sure we can. See God made a special pact with everyone before Jesus, the old covenants and such. And those poor native Americans that never heard about Christ? Well they can't get into heaven but they can be judged on their merits and sent somewhere less bad than hell. Goody, so they are denied eternal paradise because they were born in the wrong place? Isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value. Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad. Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart.

In Christianity, neither faith nor reason are given any moral value in their own right. Also, you seem to use the no true Scotsman argument yourself, in that while you admit that reason can, like faith, lead to atrocities, you still went to the trouble of pointing out that it must be 'flawed reason'. So all the genocides in human history weren't caused by reason, it mustn't have been true reason, just flawed reason. Presuming you agree that 'atrocities' are morally bad, this also suggests that despite attacking Christianity for it, you yourself haven't in reality separated the concepts of reason/faith from morality, since you seem reluctant to ascribe bad things to pure reason (as opposed to 'flawed reason').

If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

Indeed, whatever you have done, if you accept Christ, then you are forgiven - I'm not ashamed of one of the core aspects of the faith.

Also, it is a massive generalisaton to say that the main moral value in organised religion is money and political power. You should really treat that on a denomination by denomination basis. What about the Plymouth Brethren that don't ask for a penny and say that if their faith isn't great enough for them to pay for a building then they shouldn't ask anyone to be there?

The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey. That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell.

You are making a lot of emotive statements regarding the concept of hell. But since the purpose of hell in Christianity rests upon what exactly human nature is, can you really base a solid, rational argument upon such a complex and untangible thing, and show convincingly that the concept of hell is theologically inconsistant?

If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

How is this relevant to this thread?

Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.

Where do you get this idea that simply believing in the existence of God is what makes separates Christians from the rest?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....Which isn't really relevant to the question of where he is now.

If he's in hell, then the christian god is evil in my opinion. If he's in heaven, there's no point in being a christian. If there's a third alternative, please explain...

Right, ok. It is relevent, because Ghandi's actions are de-valued if motivated by a belief in Indian superiority, which undermines your argument somewhat. Christianity is about turning towards God, rather than away from him. Those who do turn to God go to be with him when they die, those that don't, don't.

Whether Hell is actually a litteral pit or not is not that important. Hell is to be without God, which is to be without anything. I tend to think of it like screaming alone in the darkness for all eternity, without the comfort of darkness or the relief of being able to scream. Christianity isn't actually about Heaven and Hell, they are tangentile. Christianity is about the relationship between the individual and God.

You are complaining that Christianity would condemn Ghandi to an eternity without God, but by your own admission he wasn't interested in being with God to begin with.

It's not my intent to troll nice people who are religious, because it may offend them and that's not my intent. But I still feel like I can share my opinion, can I not? Spoiler'ed anyway to protect people's feelings.

If you genuinely don't want to offend then you might try moderating your tone and not hiding behind platitudes.

For me it is a moot point, because I cannot bring myself to think that a kind and loving creator being would burn me forever simply because I didn't blindly accept one man's opinion that he was God.

So, you don't want God, and you're complaining he doesn't want you?

It's sort of a contradiction in terms. The benevolent, merciful torturer of his own children.

How can you go to God when you die if you reject him with your dying breath?

There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value.

He doesn't. So your statement is irrelevant.

Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad.

Patently obvious, point made repeatedly in the Bible.

Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart.

As Rhy rightly noted, you deploy No True Scotsman yourself. Faith in God is flawed because it is human. Humans stray and, when they do, commit Sin against God. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, not one who is morally superior.

If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

Rubbish, because Christianity is not about Heaven and Hell. Some people do try to "sell" that, but the religion does not focus on Heaven and Hell, accept as the logical result of the state of the individual's relationship with God.

The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey.

Of course it is, that's why Christians don't use it.

That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell. Oh, but we can make exceptions, yes? Sure we can. See God made a special pact with everyone before Jesus, the old covenants and such. And those poor native Americans that never heard about Christ? Well they can't get into heaven but they can be judged on their merits and sent somewhere less bad than hell. Goody, so they are denied eternal paradise because they were born in the wrong place? Isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

I suggest you actually read some salvation Theology, sufficed to say Native Americans do not automatically go to Hell.

If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

So, basically you want us all to by Biblical litteralists so that you can make fun of us. Sorry, it doesn't work like that; you have to deal with us as we are, not as your prejudice would have us be.

Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.S

I point you to Socrates here.

[KukriKhan]

Gandhi's ashes were poured into urns which were sent across India for memorial services. Most were immersed at the Sangam at Allahabad on 12 February 1948 but some were secretly taken away.[54] In 1997, Tushar Gandhi immersed the contents of one urn, found in a bank vault and reclaimed through the courts, at the Sangam at Allahabad.[54][55] On 30 January 2008 the contents of another urn were immersed at Girgaum Chowpatty by the family after a Dubai-based businessman had sent it to a Mumbai museum.[54] Another urn has ended up in a palace of the Aga Khan in Pune[54] (where he had been imprisoned from 1942 to 1944) and another in the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine in Los Angeles.[56] The family is aware that these enshrined ashes could be misused for political purposes but does not want to have them removed because it would entail breaking the shrines

So I submit: Ghandi (or rather: bits and pieces of him) is all over the place, including about 100 miles from me.

Where is his "soul" according to christian beliefs? Limbo, home of the innocent unbaptised and righteous. This place is similar in concept to svarga

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

All created beings are imperfect and thus have at least one sin to their record; but if one has generally led a pious life, one ascends to svarga, a temporary realm of enjoinment similar to Paradise, after a brief period of expiation in Hell and before the next reincarnation according to the law of karma.

, a sort of waiting room before reincarnation into the next life.

[Kralizec]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.

Also, am I the only one who finds this view of PVC's absolutely sickeningly arrogant, that Gandhi was in the wrong not to accept the Christian dogma? What gives Christians the monopoly on being morally right? Absolutely nothing.

P.S. The Nehru-Gandhi family is called that way for a reason... it isn't related to Mohandas Gandhi. Its progenitor was Jawaharlal Nehru, another Congress figure and first PM of India. The Gandhi comes from another Gujarati, Feroze Gandhi, who was not related to Mohandas.

True, but from what I know hiis attitude towards emancipation of the Dalits was rather ambivalent.

You are complaining that Christianity would condemn Ghandi to an eternity without God, but by your own admission he wasn't interested in being with God to begin with.

Well, Ghandi was born as a Hindu. I don't know if your parents were christian, but let's be honest here: the overwhelming reason why people are christians is because their parents were. Conversions to other faiths are fairly rare. And, from my own observations, it's very rare for a person who's been raised without any religion at all to adopt one as an adult.

So assuming that christianity is the "true faith", people who are born from christian parents have a head start in reaching salvation. How is that fair?

[Husar]

So.... God hates freedom?

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves? That however, does not mean that he will let everyone into heaven. You're not really saying democratic societies hate freedom just because they have laws one must obey to stay out of prison?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Ghandi was born as a Hindu. I don't know if your parents were christian, but let's be honest here: the overwhelming reason why people are christians is because their parents were. Conversions to other faiths are fairly rare. And, from my own observations, it's very rare for a person who's been raised without any religion at all to adopt one as an adult.

So assuming that christianity is the "true faith", people who are born from christian parents have a head start in reaching salvation. How is that fair?

Well, that's not true; people can convert in great swathes. Christianity was not in an "upper class" religion initially, but one of slaves.

As to my own upbringing: I was raised in England, but if anything my education was anti-Christian.

[Beskar]

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves?

You haven't been going to bible classes. He never gave us that, technically, satan embodied through a snake actually gave us freedom, by making Adam and Eve eat the apple through their choice, thus, create sin by disobeying god. By eating the apple, Adam and Eve came to know what good and evil are, that evil is going against god and being good is obeying him.

The other consequences from this is that man realised what it was to think for ourselves, opposed to having others think for us (ie: god).

Quite interesting, don't you think?

[Aemilius Paulus]

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves?

Who said we think for ourselves? It may seem so, but appearances are deceptive. Who is to say we are not but automatons, believing we have free will, yet always choosing predictable choices based on personality, upbringing, other people, general environment, etc... Does God not know every step we will make in our lives before we are even born? He does not even need to control us. We are our own slaves.

[Strike For The South]

Hell